Page 1 of 1

NS review consultation

Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 3:43pm
by pjclinch
It's 2017, so almost 5 year review of the NS time.

I'm thinking of putting in something about a negotiated move in to a traffic stream, since L2 and L3 assume that gaps you can move in to will magically be there and IME they may well not be.

Anyone else in The Panel have thoughts on that, or their own additions/edits to the existing outcomes?

Pete.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 11 Aug 2017, 5:34pm
by mjr
Not in The Panel but with the increasing amounts of superhighways and similar, it would be good to see the parts about off-carriageway infrastructure in L2 and L3 stop being optional and improved to contain actual guidance on correct use (including keeping to the left of oncoming riders) instead of being primarily about not using them and containing motorist propaganda about making oneself "visible" (I have still yet to meet anyone who knows how to be invisible)

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 13 Aug 2017, 10:10am
by pjclinch
mjr wrote:Not in The Panel but with the increasing amounts of superhighways and similar, it would be good to see the parts about off-carriageway infrastructure in L2 and L3 stop being optional and improved to contain actual guidance on correct use (including keeping to the left of oncoming riders) instead of being primarily about not using them and containing motorist propaganda about making oneself "visible" (I have still yet to meet anyone who knows how to be invisible)


Good one, though of course problematical to teach where there isn't any of this kind of thing. What might be worth saying is some degree of carrot/stick to teach all outcomes that would be relevant to trainees in the area around the training location. In the school I do most of my delivery to children we don't do mini-roundabouts because there aren't any in the village, but I can think of quite a few locations where not covering them would really snooker attempts to cycle to school on the roads.
In any case I think more info on using a Proper cycle track, even if it can't be formally taught in all cases, would be an excellent addition.

(How to be invisible? Actually very easy, just be in a place out of sight lines, but nothing much to do with the traditional advice to wear YELLLOW!)

Pete.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 23 Aug 2017, 10:43am
by pjclinch
Now up and online at http://nsreview2017.com/

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 26 Aug 2017, 3:27pm
by bertgrower
pjclinch wrote:
mjr wrote:Not in The Panel but with the increasing amounts of superhighways and similar, it would be good to see the parts about off-carriageway infrastructure in L2 and L3 stop being optional and improved to contain actual guidance on correct use (including keeping to the left of oncoming riders) instead of being primarily about not using them and containing motorist propaganda about making oneself "visible" (I have still yet to meet anyone who knows how to be invisible)


Good one, though of course problematical to teach where there isn't any of this kind of thing. What might be worth saying is some degree of carrot/stick to teach all outcomes that would be relevant to trainees in the area around the training location. In the school I do most of my delivery to children we don't do mini-roundabouts because there aren't any in the village, but I can think of quite a few locations where not covering them would really snooker attempts to cycle to school on the roads.
In any case I think more info on using a Proper cycle track, even if it can't be formally taught in all cases, would be an excellent addition.

(How to be invisible? Actually very easy, just be in a place out of sight lines, but nothing much to do with the traditional advice to wear YELLLOW!)

Pete.
In low sun bright red is best to be seen by.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 26 Aug 2017, 8:45pm
by pjclinch
bertgrower wrote:In low sun bright red is best to be seen by.


And it sticks out best in snow as well... but carrying around a selection of different jackets to change according to conditions is, I'd suggest, not a really tenable approach to road safety.

Pete.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 27 Aug 2017, 9:03am
by Si
For the typical bikeability session there is:

1. The stuff that should be taught
2. The stuff that is taught
3. The leeway you allow them when deciding if they have achieved

Bikeability probably needs to change to reflect the differences between 1. and 2. Then there needs to be a discussion to decide if the differences between 2. and 3. need to be reflected.

For instance, finishing a journey from secondary.....half the instructors i work with dont teach the left shoulder check, and of those that do, most would still award L2 to trainee that didnt do it but got the 'important' stuff right.

Oh, and one thing id do extra work on is discussion of whether or not to signal when doing left from major to minor when there is oncoming traffic wanting to turn right.

And another thing....add a proper stop-start to L1 to get rid of all the foot faff before getting onto the road.

And ban the use of bmxs :twisted:

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 28 Aug 2017, 7:03pm
by John Holiday
Re the last point,on use of BMW bikes, I would love to suggest to the trainees that it was inappropriate for road use, & go & borrow another bike!
However, that would mean stopping about half the participants, & as we are there to encourage more children to cycle in safety, we just have to make do with what the arrive with!
Unfortunately very few are on Isla bikes or Frog!

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 28 Aug 2017, 7:55pm
by Si
Yes, i was joking, but i have done a school where the form teachet banned bmxs. All for bsnning bmws too ;-)

i spose, given current headlines they might have to discuss a bit on telling trainees what constitutes a legal bike.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 29 Aug 2017, 9:48am
by pjclinch
While BMXs are bad for Bikeability 2 and on (and BMXSOs are just bad), the fact is that kids turning up on them can still get about and can still learn to use the road and interact with other traffic. Saying they can't use their favourite bike is mainly a barrier to getting them cycling, which is a bit of an own goal.

On the matter of leeway for passing an outcome, I think the system we use in Scotland is worth exporting south (and I've said this in my questionnaire reply). The certificate is a folded pamphlet format with the front page the headline hang-on-your-bedroom-wall bit, while the middle spread has each outcome listed with traffic-lights against and a space for comments. Traffic lights are green (no problem), amber (a little work needed) or red (quite a lot of work needed).
You don't pass or fail Bikeability Scotland, you attend the course and get a certificate telling you how you did on each outcome. So if a trainee is largely there on an outcome but needs some polish you can give an amber and note "just remember X and it would be green!"

Pete.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 29 Aug 2017, 3:48pm
by Si
You dont pass or fail in england either, you either achieve or you dont achieve ;-)

on the front of our certs it just says they have taken part...on that back you can write 'ACHIEVED L2" Or you can do "REQUIRES FURTHER WORK ON.......TO ACHIEVE L2". But your sysemt sounds better for thekids but more work for the instructors. I assume you need to get green traffic lights on everything to be allowed to move up to L3?

Couple of other things that could do with changing in bikeability -
- L2 dont let them have an L2 unless they have actually done it in proper traffic.....this may be more a delivery issue, but could do with really underlining in the book.
- L3 cut out most of the optional stuff, make it mandatory. If you are going to teach them to ride do a full job of it.

AND BRING BACK THE METAL BADGES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 31 Aug 2017, 9:15am
by pjclinch
Si wrote:on the front of our certs it just says they have taken part...on that back you can write 'ACHIEVED L2" Or you can do "REQUIRES FURTHER WORK ON.......TO ACHIEVE L2". But your sysemt sounds better for thekids but more work for the instructors. I assume you need to get green traffic lights on everything to be allowed to move up to L3?


What you really need to move up to L3 in Scotland is pretty much anyone offering it, but that's a different issue.
L3 requires that you can demonstrate all L2 outcomes as its first outcome, of course. I suppose you could get an amber or red on that... :wink: but there isn't any formal structure in place about it.

Si wrote:Couple of other things that could do with changing in bikeability -
- L2 dont let them have an L2 unless they have actually done it in proper traffic.....this may be more a delivery issue, but could do with really underlining in the book.
- L3 cut out most of the optional stuff, make it mandatory. If you are going to teach them to ride do a full job of it.


I'm with you on that. NS took U-turns from optional last time around so fill in the questionnaire rather than abandon all hope. L2 in a playground does have a bit of a combat experience live fire (paintball) vibe about it...

Si wrote:AND BRING BACK THE METAL BADGES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think we're getting those, having not had them originally.

Pete.

Re: NS review consultation

Posted: 31 Aug 2017, 3:58pm
by Si
Not sure i was as clear as i could have been reL2 in traffic. I was more thinking of where a child is awarded L2 after doing all the maneuvers percectly in a quiet residential road that only sees one car every half an hour.